beyondbinaryfandomcom-20200215-history
Quantum Cryptography
Quantum cryptography is a field of cryptography in which the encryption of messages and security of the channel are guaranteed by the quantum uncertaintyuncertainty limits imposed on any eavesdropper who doesn't know the measurement protocol (i.e. the 'private key'). Blockchain (see also Quantum Encryption) https://theqrl.org/whitepaper/QRL_whitepaper.pdf "There are several important cryptographic systems which are believed to be quantum-resistant: hash-based cryptography, code-based cryptography, lattice-based cryptography, multivariate-quadratic-equations cryptography and secret-key cryptography. All these schemes are thought to resist both classical and quantum computing attack given sufficiently long key sizes. Forward secure hash-based digital signature schemes exist with minimal security requirements that rely only upon the collision-resistance of a cryptographic hash function. Changing the chosen hash function produces a new hash-based digital signature scheme. Hash-based digital signatures are well studied and represent the primary candidate for post-quantum signatures in the future. As such they are the chosen class of post-quantum signature for the QRL." Merkle Trees * During communication over a lossy channel, you can never guarantee there is no one eavesdropping * To give secure communication to your desired target (e.g. "Bob"), you (e.g. "Alice") may need to speak in a code that Bob understands, yet ensure that code is secret enough that an outside eavesdropper (e.g. "Eve") would not understand the underlying meaning. * Assymmetric Encryption requires an algorithm that is exponentially easier to solve when you hold a secret key that efficiently decrypts the encrypted message into a meaningful output, bypassing Eve and speaking solely to Bob (e.g. "obBay, ancay ouyay asspay emay ethey odkavay?", "esYay, ymay ovelay.") * A Merkle Tree uses the same principle in that any single hash can be verified instantly as valid for a given Merkle Root, yet the probability of predicting a set of hashes that can produce a given Merkle Root is an 'asymmetrically-hard' problem. * Asymmetric algorithms allow Bob to understand in seconds what Eve may never decipher, simply by Alice and Bob sharing a "secret" (e.g. the rules of Pig Latin) * In the same way, a Merkle Tree allows for the private validation of large datasets under the asymmetric knowledge that any dataset whose encrypted hash is valid for the given Merkle Root, is quantifiably more likely to be valid (especially if we choose a strong hash function e.g. SHA-2) * We are able to make it exponentially harder for someone to edit our communications by creating a hash function complex enough that the probability of having two different messages (Merkle leaves) which both create the same hash 'root becomes infinitesimal. * The probability of an Eavesdropper deciphering our message is kind of irrelevant now, since really you aren't sharing data, just validating it's contents over time as identical (can't swap one "Leaf" of data without changing the whole Merkle Branch and Root) * The Eavesdropper certainly can't intercept and alter communications between Sender and Receiver (since these alterations would be exponentially difficult to engineer into the same Merkle Root, let alone to have non-random meaning as well. The original data makes exponentially more sense and hence alteration is immediately detectable. * When sharing the Merkle Leaf (the hash of your data) there is an exponentially small risk that an Eavesdropper could brute force guess your data by searching for solutions which give the Merkle Root, but without a Quantum Computer that can be made intractably hard (e.g. using SHA-256 encryption -> |LearnCryptography://Why is 2^256 secure?>). * Hence, we have easy validation of privately encrypted communications, cross-referenced in a network of private nodes. A Merkle Tree can allow anonymous validation of data of any kind (including transactions as in Bitcoin) Organic Quantum Cryptography Organic Quantum Cryptography (or 'OQC') is a field of quantum cryptography that relies on the hypothesis that sentient organisms are capable of rudimentary quantum computation. Pattern recognition amidst noisy environments is a biologically evolved skill that even modern computers struggle with unless trained intensively with large sets of data. This massive parallelism is highly inefficient for classical computers, meaning that huge datasets need to be created and organised before new skills can be learned. Humans, on the other hand, learn to find new patterns in our environments through every stage of our life and our success as a species has largely been due to our refined abilities to adapt to new patterns. OQC aims to use human pattern-recognition skills to provide secure communication between trusted nodes of a quantum computing network, while preventing 'eavesdropping' by encoding all messages in a secret basis that is simple to decipher for the participating nodes, but almost impossible to guess for an outsider. Astro-OQC Astrologically-encoded OQC is an implementation model in which the only shared information (i.e. the 'public key') between untrusted nodes is a spacetime coordinate relevant to the 'birth' of the node. Communicated messages are encrypted through a series of permutations whose precise order needs to be reversed to decrypt the message. By triggering the permutations on the node's responses to varying sets of pre-defined stimuli, a challenge is produced. If an outsider is able to predict the responses of the node to those stimuli, then the communication can be decoded and is added to the 'public chain' of that node. Nodes with longer 'public chains' are gradually subjected to more complex sets of stimuli to prevent their responses being easily inferred from their previous history. Outcomes: The fundamental hypothesis that astro-OQC is designed to explore is whether humans are capable of detecting patterns in such responses that correlate with patterns in the birth time of the other humans that form the network. By using a wide range of stimuli sets (generated by users) and a large network of users, the verification of both the premises of astrology and the fundamental hypothesis of OQC can be explored. Sensory-OQC One thing that classical computers will always find difficult to solve are any algorithms that require the interpretation of qualia, which is guaranteed to be "Hard" for any non-conscious being to solve relative to a conscious being. Hence, in any similar problem there is an associated "speed-up" that is analogous to a "quantum speed-up" in an algorithm designed for a classical computer. Here, the solution is to no longer look for speed-ups of algorithms designed for classical computers, but to look outside of the box into algorithms that are inherently hard for any non-conscious computer to solve. Cryptographic Game Using sensory glyphs as inputs which then have to be compared or categorised based on their qualities. * Comparing images of foods and sorting them into 'fruits', 'vegetables', etc. * Comparing voices and describing the gender of the speaker. A computer is capable of learning to make these distinctions, but only when it's algorithms have developed from a large set of prior data and learned analytical patterns that work (on average) to give a strong probability of correct identification. Meanwhile the ability to actually perceive the qualia holistically as a human gives a distinct advantage in that relevant patterns are pre-loaded in our prior experiences and in the words we use to describe the objects. This by no means proves the thesis of consciousness being a form of quantum computation, but the formed analogy indicates the limits of defining the 'quantumness' of a computer in terms of the linear circuit model of quantum computation and its limited definition of what an 'algorithm' truly is. Blockchain idea 1 Using url links to the qualia, asking users to confirm whether the two images belong to the same category? The hashes are determined as the result of many parity-check operations between two qualia: same category = 1, different categories = 0. Issue - needs to be hard to generate hashes of arbitrary form. Here, you can just select images from different categories for the first 18 pairs in order to guarantee a hash beginning with 18 zero's (out of 160 in analogy to SHA-1, although here ~9/80 may be sufficient). Instead - generate half of the pair-members as an initial random set of nonce-image-urls pulled from a constantly refilling database, the hash is now only formed .. hmm... not really great, is it. Let's reinvent the method because this binary approach is not fitting for something as subjective as qualia, need a quantum-probabilistic algorithm not a linear-deterministic one. Blockchain idea 2 Ok, if your verification process is non-deterministic, then how do you verify the chain? The answer is you can't, just like the blockchain can't ever be truly verified because verification always relies on trusting those who perform the verification. On a linear-blockchain (all current implementations), however, the use of a single chain by all members of the network means that it would require 51% of the network to collude in order to intentionally allow errors into the 'verified' chain. A non-linear blockchain loses many of the advantages of the linear-deterministic approach. How can different members of a network establish each-others true transactional history if verification is trustless or not-fully-trusted? This is the issue of a solipsistic network. If every node only trusts their own transactions as proof of verification, then they are unable to establish the balance of any other node but their own. Post-solipsistic non-linear networks are all networks which are based on trusting some forms of verification other than their own transactions. Linear-deterministic blockchains are post-solipsistic networks in which verifications which have been checked by some critical percentage of the network or continued by some critical number of subsequent blocks. The 'call to popularity' forms the basis, but since the verification process is deterministic for a trustworthy verification node this approach allows a single-chain to proceed as long as 51% of the network remains trustworthy. In a network with less than 51% trust, a deterministic verification process can no longer guarantee a trustworthy chain-history. Erroneous transactions can be verified and 'swept under the rug', giving a corrupted chain. When the trust reaches levels approaching solipsism (<0.1% if the network is >1000 nodes) then the most reasonable assumption is that any chain proposed by any verifying node is corrupted. Hence, we can no longer exist within the single-chain model and lose the advantages of having the entire transaction record available to every node, and hence all balances verifiable by every node. A Solution: Have each node form its own 'public chain' stored locally and required to be publicly accessible at the time of any transaction. Nodes wishing to engage in a transaction only need to verify each other's public-chains sufficiently to ensure that the desired tokens are available in eachother's wallets. The entire chain does not need to be checked unless the amount required is larger than all recent gains, because the wallet cannot contain negative tokens (e.g. if I need $10 and your last transactions were $M+$15-$2, then I know that you have at least $13 regardless of your total balance because M \geq 0). An Issue: However, if you can't trust that a transacting node's chain is up-to-date then they are capable of 'double-paying', convincing two nodes to accept payment of their available funds simultaneously despite lacking the total sum of funds (e.g. paying $10 to me and $10 to someone else when M was 0, leaving $13-$20=-$7). This leads to a violation of the assumption of no non-negative funds, and makes all trust impossible. How to guarantee ... (hmm, is this pointless? I've destroyed the benefits of the blockchain and for what alternative goal? To prove that it's possible to operate in a not-fully-trusted economy? or to find ways to form trusted sub-networks within an over-arching untrusted environment? - this is valuable) Field-Programmable Neural Networking Neural networks based on classical computation are not auto-correlating. Under the Quantum Cognition paradigm, one can argue that a network of sentient beings is a quantum network and one that is capable of self-programming. Like an FPGA but the programmers are members of the array. We program ourselves and each other through cultural signals, now we use technology to share more obvious ones - 'memes'. - a blockmesh in which the only 'chains' are created by nodes themselves, and only stretch for as long as their past transaction history. - the network validates the chains of each transactant prior to the transaction, but does not need to store the past transactions of each transactant in order to validate the transaction in future - instead, the validation comes through the creation of a hash and timestamp involving the private key of both participants - a 3-way privacy routine linked to the exact moment the transaction occurred. - the network merely needs to recall the time of all transactions and the public keys of the transactants? No, because a transactant could lie about the transaction later once given enough time to generate a false record by brute forcing the old timestamp until they get the same final hash (which verifies the problem as solved) - How to stop people doing that? Proof of Work The goal of human quantum cryptography in the sense proposed here is essentially to create proof-of-work processes that are difficult for classical computers to solve, but relatively easy for human's to solve. Essentially it is turning a Turing Test into a cryptographic algorithm. Equality (see also Blockchain#Hashes) Hash algorithms are generally computationally exhaustive, hence CPU's or GPU's designed with high processing power have a huge advantage over less specialised models. This is a problem for mining coins on a blockchain, since it leads to a centralisation of mining power into economies capable of mass-producing such specialised equipment. One current solution is to use the Grøstl algorithm (http://groestl.info/), which claims to be efficient on even old CPU's and GPU's. Justification BITCOIN GOLD: It looks like the world's biggest cryptocurrency is about to split again - Business Insider "The Bitcoin platform is set up so that each time a new block is mined and added to the blockchain, the miner provides a “proof-of-work” function which is approved by all other participants in the blockchain. That ensures the network isn’t corrupted and right now, the proof-of-work function is relatively simple which gives big miners with lots of processing power a big advantage. Bitcoin Gold advocates want to use a more complex proof-of-work algorithm, which will reduce the big miners speed advantage to around 100 times per second. The rationale is that by taking the mining power out of the hands of a few dominant players, the Bitcoin Gold network will be more decentralised and resistant to unexpected shocks or manipulation. In other words, safer and more like gold." By creating a proof-of-work algorithm that requires quantum computation to solve efficiently, this safe-guards against algorithms using centralised power to solve them, since artificial quantum computers are still some time from being developed, whereas if one believes the premise that human consciousness requires quantum computation, then humans have a head-start over classical computers in some of these problems. Developing an appropriate algorithm is the next step...Category:Quantum Cryptography Category:Human Quantum Computing Category:Organic Quantum Computing Category:Quantum Computing Category:Cryptography